Wow, October already... That makes yesterday the fourth anniversary of MrsBlue
and I closing on our house. I'd try to claim that getting out of our urban
apartment and into the vicinity of some actual trees has saved my sanity, but of
course there are years of these OotB rambles to quickly put the lie to that
claim.

Once again, I'll gladly concede the point that he has been quoted contradicting himself. What I'm still trying to point out is that this is irrelevant. Bush has been quoted doing the exact same thing in no less damning terms. More damning in fact; I frankly don't find Kerry's opinions on the Vietnam war all that pertinent, relatively. I do find this relevant, however:

During the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush argued against nation building and foreign military entanglements. In the second presidential debate, he said: "I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, 'This is the way it's got to be.'"

The United States is currently involved in nation building in Iraq on a scale unseen since the years immediately following World War II.

During the 2000 election, Mr. Bush called for U.S. troops to be withdrawn from the NATO peacekeeping mission in the Balkans. His administration now cites such missions as an example of how America must "stay the course."

Not to mention the others found here, all of which deal with the current problems facing this country rather than a war fought in the 1960s:

So again, how is Kerry's Vietnam stance meaningful here, especially in light of his opponent?

I'll say again that Kerry being a "flip-flopper" is such a frequent issue because the Bush campaign has beaten everyone over the head with it. Bush supporters, finding it a convenient and simple idea, turn around and beat non-Bush supporters over the head with it. It's simply not a very valid or relevant line of argument and I'm sick of hearing it.

I won't say that it isn't a good technique -- Bush is trying to make his failure look like a success, and Kerry's intelligence look like weakness. Bush wants to contrast Kerry's "flip-flopping" to his own "resolve," when in fact Kerry's positions are calculated responses to developing events and Bush's are stubborn and arrogant attempts to project an image of pride or "toughness." Again, Kerry's stances are in no way any more of an appeal to voters than Bush's. Bush and his team are counting on his everyman, cowboy, straight-talking, tough guy, "it's hard work," stay the course, kill-the-brown-terrorists, God-bless-America image appealing to certain demographics in this country, and it seems to be working. Unfortunately, though these qualities may be likeable to many people, they are not necessarily the qualities of a responsible leader and should not be the ones people consider in making their decision. I think this couldn't be more transparent, and as such continue to be frustrated when people seem unable or unwilling to see through it.

EDIT: <tangent> Here's an interesting link I stumbled upon today which is quite applicable to the Bush administration and their decision-making processes:

Warhawk, those quotes would probably seem more pertinent if they were shorter and had more ellipses.

Sarcasm is a wonderful thing.

You can say that Kerry "changes his mind with the political winds" all you want, but how does he do it any more than Bush, or most other politicians?

Because with Kerry the inconsistancies are glaring, blatant, and solely for political reasons. His inconsistancies also extend to events "seared into his mind" and to events he has made pertinent to his campaign. Then, when many of the consistancies could be cleared up by releasing his records (as Bush has done), he refuses to do so.

Also:

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has denied ever accusing American troops of committing war crimes in Vietnam. But his remarks during an interview on CNN Thursday are at odds with the excerpts of a book Kerry authored in 1971, a copy of which CNSNews.com obtained this week.

The New Soldier, which is currently so difficult to find that it was selling on the Internet for about $850, featured the following passage by Kerry about his experiences in Vietnam. "We were sent to Vietnam to kill Communism. But we found instead that we were killing women and children."

But when asked by CNN anchor Judy Woodruff on Thursday about allegations that he had accused "American troops of war crimes," Kerry issued a denial.

"No, I was accusing American leaders of abandoning the troops. And if you read what I said, it is very clearly an indictment of leadership. I said to the Senate, where is the leadership of our country? And it's the leaders who are responsible, not the soldiers. I never said that. I've always fought for the soldiers," he said.

A defiant Kerry told CNN's Woodruff that he did not regret his anti-war activism

How well does that jive with the previous statements I quoted? Not very well, if you are Kerry, I'm afraid. Again, he can't shake what he did and said no matter how hard he tries. It doesn't work that way.

Warhawk, those quotes would probably seem more pertinent if they were shorter and had more ellipses. Then we'd be getting the whole picture.

Do you work for Fox news or something? You can say that Kerry "changes his mind with the political winds" all you want, but how does he do it any more than Bush, or most other politicians? You're just harping on it because the Bush campaign has done so.

He tried to continue his studies but wasn't able to. He then volunteered to go to Vietnam. I still see nothing wrong with that

Kerry portrays himself (or seems to want himself portrayed) as a gung-ho war hero, with his supporters bashing Bush for not serving in Vietnam, when in fact he tried to get a deferrment from serving. When that failed, he joined. There is nothing wrong with it at all, except it does not jive with the image he portrays of himself.

His injuries were well documented and have been found to be earned honorably from a recent Navy investigation as well as eyewitness accounts (Not The swift boat vet who never actually saw anything). Also don't forget the Bronze and Silver stars. I wouldn't try to downplay what he did, he saw more action in 4 months that most saw in a year.

All he'd have to do is release all his records (as Bush did) to clear all this up, but he refuses to. Why? There are many who served questioning his medals and quick exit from the war. The doctor who attneded him said the following:

Kerry's failure to release all of his medical records regarding the Purple Hearts has led to speculation that at least one of the awards was given for a "bandaid" wound that was "engineered" by Kerry in order to gain early leave from Vietnam. Now the doctor who treated Kerry's wound is speaking out.

In the article, Doctor Letson says that the story Kerry told him was different than what the crew had said about that night. According to Kerry, they had been engaged in a fire fight, receiving small arms fire from on shore. He said that his injury resulted from this enemy action.

"Some of his crew confided that they did not receive any fire from shore, but that Kerry had fired a mortar round at close range to some rocks on shore," recalled Letson. "The crewman thought that the injury was caused by a fragment ricocheting from that mortar round when it struck the rocks. That seemed to fit the injury which I treated."

"The wound was covered with a bandaid," said Letson. "Not [sic] other injuries were reported and I do not recall that there was any reported damage to the boat."

This was more b.s. that came from the swift-boat liars. He never said he committed atrocities, he said other veterans had told him what they had seen, which was the case in the winter soldier investigation. He said there were violations in the Geneva conventions with the "Free-fire zones"

Look at what he said, and make your own decision:

MR. CROSBY NOYES (Washington Evening Star): Mr. Kerry, you said at one time or another that you think our policies in Vietnam are tantamount to genocide and that the responsibility lies at all chains of command over there. Do you consider that you personally as a Naval officer committed atrocities in Vietnam or crimes punishable by law in this country?

SEN. KERRY: There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.

What does that sound like to you? He says, "Yes, I did it", in very easy to understand language.

You call it propaganda but it’s been well documented that atrocities occurred. In fact I think Kerry’s comments and the winter solider investigation put pressure to end the war.

Yes, I'm sure they did. But again, soldiers were being killed and tortured and Kerry decided it was a good idea to travel to a foreign country to hold meetings with the enemy, to come back to the US, to paint virtually every soldier in the theater as a war criminal, giving support to those trying to kill our soldiers during the war.

I've never questioned Kerry's bravery or service. I applaud him for it and would shake his hand and thank him for serving. But, that doesn't mean I'd vote for him.

I question his judgement, his actions after the war, and habit of changing his mind with the political winds.

Why wouldn't he? He did his part, he didn't agree with war but he's still proud of his service.

Because of the severity of his claims. Because of his freely admitted commission of atrocities. Because of his statements after the war lending support to the enemy during a time of war. Doesn't sound like he was all that proud of his service then.

Since we have invaded Iraq the truth has come out about the war. That the evidance was exaturated and minpulated and in most cases just made up or wrong about WMD and the truth is they didn't exist. Anyone who still thinks that the reasons for going to war with iraq are the same now as they were in 2002 and 2003 are just plan stubborn.

That's nice, except at the time, Kerry believed that the WMDs were there as well. Right now, he's attacking Bush for acting on information that Kerry thought was accurate as well, and he supported Bush at that time.

Again, because apparently you missed it the first time:

1998: Kerry Willing To Commit Ground Troops In Iraq. KERRY: "I think there is a disconnect between the depth of the threat that Saddam Hussein presents to the world and what we are at the moment talking about doing. ... [T]hen we have to be prepared to go the full distance, which is to do everything possible to disrupt his regime and to encourage the forces of democracy." ABC’S COKIE ROBERTS: "And does that mean ground troops in Iraq?" KERRY: "I am personally prepared, if that’s what it meant." (ABC’s "This Week," 2/22/98)

2001: Kerry Says Iraq Part Of Global War On Terror. KERRY: "I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn’t end with Afghanistan by any imagination. And I think the president has made that clear. I think we have made that clear. Terrorism is a global menace. It’s a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue, for instance, Saddam Hussein." (CNN’s "Larry King Live," 12/14/01)

2002: Kerry Agrees With Goal Of Regime Change In Iraq. "I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq ..." (Sen. John Kerry, Speech To The 2002 DLC National Conversation, New York, NY, 7/29/02)

2003: Kerry Says Disarming Saddam Was "Right Decision." KERRY: "George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." (ABC News Democrat Presidential Candidates Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/3/03)

It's wrong to say "I support this decision" at the time it's made and change your tune to "I didn't support this decision" a few months later. That, my friend, is waffling, lying, flip-flopping, whatever you want to call it.

warhawk, you could do much to improve your signal to noise ratio. It's a pretty good tactic, pasting paragraph after paragraph of someone else's text followed by a brief conclusion of your own; you present the illusion of thorough research, perhaps prompting the reader to accept your quotations as truthful and assume that they provide support for your conclusion. This is not often the case, however.

For refutations of some of your points and more fine examples of deceptive propoganda and how it can be proven false, consult the following links:

Read the original articles quoted by snopes. Sound pretty convincing on their own, don't they? Then read the explanatory text. "Oh," you say. "Looks like there was more to it than that." Who'd have thunk it?

1. Tries to avoid Vietnam by applying to study in France and get a deferral.

He wrote to his local recruitment board seeking permission to spend a further 12 months studying in Paris, after completing his degree course at Yale University in the mid-1960s.

The revelation appears to undercut Sen. Kerry's carefully-cultivated image as a man who willingly served his country in a dangerous war - in supposed contrast to President Bush, who served in the Texas National Guard and thus avoided being sent to Vietnam.

He tried to continue his studies but wasn't able to. He then volunteered to go to Vietnam. I still see nothing wrong with that, it's much more than anyone else did in the current admin. Still shows he did more than he had to, he could have joined the National Guard.

2. He served in Vietnam only 4 months (I honor this service and praise him for doing his duty), getting an honorable discharge after questionable injuries (probable self-inflicted wounds in at least one instance - his own biography stated that they hadn't come under enemy fire until days later).

His injuries were well documented and have been found to be earned honorably from a recent Navy investigation as well as eyewitness accounts (Not The swift boat vet who never actually saw anything). Also don't forget the Bronze and Silver stars. I wouldn't try to downplay what he did, he saw more action in 4 months that most saw in a year.

3. Returns to the US, says he (and EVERYONE else there) committed atrocities (and never reported any of these "atrocities" during the war, which, as a commander, was his responsibility), appears to throw away his medals (actually keeps them and throws away someone elses', now has his mounted on his office wall - WHY?).

This was more b.s. that came from the swift-boat liars. He never said he committed atrocities, he said other veterans had told him what they had seen, which was the case in the winter soldier investigation. He said there were violations in the Geneva conventions with the "Free-fire zones"

4. Went to Paris to meet with representatives of the enemy (N. Vietnam) and continued to espouse their propaganda upon his return, effectively prolonging the war.

You call it propaganda but it’s been well documented that atrocities occurred. In fact I think Kerry’s comments and the winter solider investigation put pressure to end the war.

5. Now says he is proud of his service (committing atrocities and protesting be damned).

Why wouldn't he? He did his part, he didn't agree with war but he's still proud of his service.

Also, get this quote:

Saying there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq doesn't make it so.Kinda conflict with his other statements I referenced, doesn't it?

The guy just keeps changing his tune to fit the political times, truth be damned.

Since we have invaded Iraq the truth has come out about the war. That the evidance was exaturated and minpulated and in most cases just made up or wrong about WMD and the truth is they didn't exist. Anyone who still thinks that the reasons for going to war with iraq are the same now as they were in 2002 and 2003 are just plan stubborn.

It's laughable that Kerry fighting in Vietnam and then later opposing the war is used as evidence against him. This shows that the man is not mindless! Intelligent people learn from their mistakes, re-evaluate situations, and change their opinions! They question and criticize authority.

So I take it you see no problem with a person who:

1. Tries to avoid Vietnam by applying to study in France and get a deferral.

He wrote to his local recruitment board seeking permission to spend a further 12 months studying in Paris, after completing his degree course at Yale University in the mid-1960s.

The revelation appears to undercut Sen Kerry's carefully-cultivated image as a man who willingly served his country in a dangerous war - in supposed contrast to President Bush, who served in the Texas National Guard and thus avoided being sent to Vietnam.

2. He served in Vietnam only 4 months (I honor this service and praise him for doing his duty), getting an honorable discharge after questionable injuries (probable self-inflicted wounds in at least one instance - his own biography stated that they hadn't come under enemy fire until days later).

3. Returns to the US, says he (and EVERYONE else there) committed atrocities (and never reported any of these "atrocities" during the war, which, as a commander, was his responsibility), appears to throw away his medals (actually keeps them and throws away someone elses', now has his mounted on his office wall - WHY?).

4. Went to Paris to meet with representatives of the enemy (N. Vietnam) and continued to espouse their propaganda upon his return, effectively prolonging the war.

"That was a very difficult time," says former Air Force pilot Leo Thorsness, a Congressional Medal of Honor winner who spent five years and 19 days in North Vietnamese hands. "The things he (Kerry) said were just devastating, because he was using words like 'war criminal' and that kind of stuff. As a prisoner of war, we were being told we were war criminals, and that we'd be tried for war crimes, and unless we confess, and ask for forgiveness, and bad mouth the war, and take their side in the war, we'd never go home."

Adds retired Air Force Col. Ken Cordier: "I was outraged and still am that he (Kerry) willingly said things which were untrue — the very same points that we took torture not to write and say." Cordier was incarcerated for six years and three months.

"Stolen Honor" describes the conditions in which POWs were detained. They were held in solitary confinement and communicated among each other by tapping coded messages through the dark, dank walls. Some prisoners were hung from the walls with their wrists behind their backs, causing shoulder injuries that persist even today. Others, who broke limbs in combat, were forced to sit or stand in positions that exacerbated their agony. The North Vietnamese constantly tormented them psychologically, to fracture their will and shatter their morale. John Kerry's voice aided those efforts.

Former Navy pilot Paul Galanti remembers his jailers at the so-called Hanoi Hilton playing English-language radio broadcasts of Kerry's April 22, 1971, testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

"They made a big deal about this guy who was a naval officer, talking about all these atrocities and war crimes," Galanti told David Freddoso, assistant editor of Human Events, the Washington-based conservative weekly. "They'd been for years saying, 'You're not prisoners of war, you're war criminals. You're never going home. We're going to try you after the war, and you'll all be found guilty of war crimes.'"

Whew! So you're not here to be fed opinions, you come to your very own conclusions, but you feel that the burden is on me to discredit the opinions being fed to you by warhawk? I see. Well, good luck with this decision making thing, it's all so very difficult. I hope you find a candidate whose supporters will be nice enough to you!

tron, please, it's not necessary to act like warhawk's links represent the totality of information available on the subject or that you're incapable of forming opinions based on anything that's not being laid out explicitly here. Do your own legwork.

i'm not acting that way, so don't imply that i am. did i say "that's it! warhawk wins! sign me up for the republican party! down with kerry!" not even close. as for doing my own legwork, this is how i get things done. i talk to people, they show me examples of what they believe in, and i go look up what they present and i make my mind up from there. it's not like i'm going to run out and vote for bush and dismiss kerry because of this thread - but it does help me. it's too damn hard to learn the intricacies of each party, so my best bet is to talk to people who are certain in their beliefs and let them direct me to relevant information. maybe some day i'll be 100% in favor of one party or the other, and on that day i'll do my best to educated myself on that system. but right NOW, at this point in my life i'm making a choice and relying on people who know politics better than i do to direct me to things that will help me learn. i once asked halsy some questions, and his response was to put words in my mouth and belittle me. and now you, with your sighing and calling people stupid, and telling me you simply don't have the time to prove your point. if you don't have the time, then why did you bother to get involved in this conversation? warhawk was kind and patient enough to try and prove what he was saying. i view this event as two different political parties trying to earn my vote. your tactics are worthless to me, warhawk i can respect.

unless you can point to factual sources discrediting what warhawk has presented - then this conversation is over.

- tron ----"tron is big and tron is full of action... it's a hell of a ride!"-from the Tron 2.0 box

tron, please, it's not necessary to act like warhawk's links represent the totality of information available on the subject or that you're incapable of forming opinions based on anything that's not being laid out explicitly here. Do your own legwork. I'm not trying to engage in a copy and paste competition.

Once again, the problem is people like you latching onto things like this meaningless, overblown "flip-flopper" meme and using at as an excuse to write Kerry off.

Firstly, Kerry has made it abundantly clear - he believed the president that Saddam Hussein was a threat, he trusted the president to use the intelligence wisely and to conduct the operation properly, and he doesn't think these things happened. I don't see why this is difficult to understand. I'm sure there are a great many people in this country who initially supported the war and now oppose the way it's being handled. Kerry is hardly lying through his teeth, and acting as though he's more of a flip-flopper than anyone else, or that this idea is detrimental to his ability to lead, is foolish. The man is a politician; no one denies that. I don't think there's a single politician that couldn't be quoted in a way that would seem self-contradictory. Do you honestly think Bush is better? Here's an article entitled "Bush's Top 10 Flip Flops"

And even if Bush were somehow measurably "more consistent," it would be due to his asinine hubris and refusal to deal with reality rather than propoganda.

As Kerry pointed out in the debate, President Bush is far too certain of everything. This is *not* a virtue or a quality of a good leader. It's laughable that Kerry fighting in Vietnam and then later opposing the war is used as evidence against him. This shows that the man is not mindless! Intelligent people learn from their mistakes, re-evaluate situations, and change their opinions! They question and criticize authority. But, according to Bush, questioning authority is disrespectful, or sends "mixed messages." What a nice subtle way to present authoritarian ideas. I'd much rather have a "flip-flopper" for a president than an irresponsible, incompetent, and arrogant leader.

<spelling it out> The point had nothing to do with Kerry, I was only commenting on the importance of considering the source and the context and accumulating a broad base of information based on as many facts as possible rather than latching onto easily digestible and largely meaningless over-reductions like "Kerry is a flip-flopper!" Sigh. </spelling>

fine. i looked up the links warhawk provided, and considered the context. and, they show that kerry has changed his position on the war in iraq. so, warhawk provided proof of the "flip-flopper" claim. are you implying the sources he linked to are not valid? or perhaps you are suggesting that i latch onto an easily digestible and largely meaningless over-reduction like: "bush is stupid and kerry is smart".

- tron ----"tron is big and tron is full of action... it's a hell of a ride!"-from the Tron 2.0 box

If you can't see the problems of context, editorializing, and missing details in warhawk's overly verbose posts, I don't have the time to make it clear to you.

I wish you would, because you haven't presented anything besides "Well, maybe they were taken out of context". OK, what context were they presented if other than suggested by the comments taken at face value? Are they discussing, say, the hurricanes in Florida, therefore making his statements not what they seem to be?

See, drawing attention to the fact that you don't get it isn't making me look bad, it only makes you seem obtuse. <spelling it out> The point had nothing to do with Kerry, I was only commenting on the importance of considering the source and the context and accumulating a broad base of information based on as many facts as possible rather than latching onto easily digestible and largely meaningless over-reductions like "Kerry is a flip-flopper!" Sigh.

OK, I understand that, but you imply that because of context, Kerry's remarks should be "ignored" or forgotten for some reason.

WHY?

Why should we look over his comments made previously? He has a long and well-documented record of supporting the war in Iraq until about 1 year ago, when he suddenly "flipped" to opposing it. If you can't even acknowledge that fact, there's no holding a serious discussion with you because you choose to ignore the facts.

I'm not saying you're not entitled to support the guy, I'm just saying, if you're going to argue his having "one consistent opinion" (as he says), you've got to face facts, man. He's lying through his teeth. He knows it, I know it, you know it, and so does everyone else. I just wish people would be honest about it instead of perpetuating his myth of not waffling and changing his mind all the time.

i guess his point is just supposed to magically appear in the minds of these so-called "intelligent readers".

Yeah, that was basically the point. If you can't see the problems of context, editorializing, and missing details in warhawk's overly verbose posts, I don't have the time to make it clear to you.

Lookit, we've come full circle and ended up with another condescending and exasperated liberal. Good job guys.

EDIT:

what, exactly, *is* your point? as far as i can tell you have so far not made one statement in support or defense of Kerry

See, drawing attention to the fact that you don't get it isn't making me look bad, it only makes you seem obtuse. <spelling it out> The point had nothing to do with Kerry, I was only commenting on the importance of considering the source and the context and accumulating a broad base of information based on as many facts as possible rather than latching onto easily digestible and largely meaningless over-reductions like "Kerry is a flip-flopper!" Sigh. </spelling>

Is it not obvious to you that you're only reinforcing my point by example?

what, exactly, *is* your point? as far as i can tell you have so far not made one statement in support or defense of Kerry. warhawk has clearly illustrated his point that Kerry is a waffler, unable to remain consistant on many issues. what is your point, and how are you defending it?

- tron ----"tron is big and tron is full of action... it's a hell of a ride!"-from the Tron 2.0 box

It wouldn't be hard to demonstrate this, and I'll assume that most readers here have enough intellect that I don't need to do so

Warhawk, thank you. you take the time to present your argument using facts that you gathered, and you provide links to sources to solidify your points. jediluke, meanwhile, has done nothing to reinforce his "point" - it seems he has none. looking at the above summary of his responses he says you're playing dumb, he's not gonna bother to reply, and most people are so intelligent that he doesn't even have to speak to make a point - i guess his point is just supposed to magically appear in the minds of these so-called "intelligent readers".

you win this debate hands down in my opinion. if jedi can't be bothered to even take the time and type out what he means, how can i believe a word of what he is (or actually isn't) saying? it goes right back to your initial analogy of Kerry saying "gimmie a blank check and i'll get you a great car - but i'm not going to tell you how i'm going to do it.... just trust me!!"

- tron ----"tron is big and tron is full of action... it's a hell of a ride!"-from the Tron 2.0 box

Sure, quotations can be viewed as objective reality, but in these situations it's all in the context and interpretation.

How do you "interpret" this:

1998: Kerry Willing To Commit Ground Troops In Iraq. KERRY: "I think there is a disconnect between the depth of the threat that Saddam Hussein presents to the world and what we are at the moment talking about doing. ... [T]hen we have to be prepared to go the full distance, which is to do everything possible to disrupt his regime and to encourage the forces of democracy." ABC’S COKIE ROBERTS: "And does that mean ground troops in Iraq?" KERRY: "I am personally prepared, if that’s what it meant." (ABC’s "This Week," 2/22/98)

2001: Kerry Says Iraq Part Of Global War On Terror. KERRY: "I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn’t end with Afghanistan by any imagination. And I think the president has made that clear. I think we have made that clear. Terrorism is a global menace. It’s a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue, for instance, Saddam Hussein." (CNN’s "Larry King Live," 12/14/01)

2002: Kerry Agrees With Goal Of Regime Change In Iraq. "I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq ..." (Sen. John Kerry, Speech To The 2002 DLC National Conversation, New York, NY, 7/29/02)

2003: Kerry Says Disarming Saddam Was "Right Decision." KERRY: "George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." (ABC News Democrat Presidential Candidates Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/3/03)

You can try to "interpret" these statements any way you want to, but they stand on their own and are damning of his current statements derogatory of the war in Iraq.

I'll assume that most readers here have enough intellect that I don't need to do so.

I'll assume that the readers here have enough intellect that they can see that Kerry changes his tune with the political winds, as shown by the previous quotes and his "current" position on the war.

Here's a great summary of how a lot of folks feel:

I believed him when he said he supported the war in Iraq, and I believe him now when he says he was really opposed to it all along. I believed him when he said he would take care of our troops regardless, and I believe him now when he says he was only showing them just how much he cares by voting to cut off their funding when the going got rough. I believed him when he said he was caught in the crossfire in Cambodia in 1968 and I believe him now, when he reportedly admits he wasn't.

I believed the senator when he said every last detail of that blue Cambodian Christmas was “seared” into his brain, and I believe him now when he says he’s not quite sure if his recollection of that blessed event is solid. And I most certainly believed him when he testified before the transparently non-partisan Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 22, 1971, swearing America made him commit horrific but strategically needful acts, like hunting down cattle and dogs for sport. I believe the senator and his fellow Vietnam Veterans Against the War were motivated by nothing but patriotism and love for their vile country.

I believe the senator’s totally unsolicited television appearance on the Dick Cavett show in April 1971 was in truth doctored, even then, by the radical right-wing Carlyle cabal, operating in concert with the Saudi royal family, the CIA, and the reactionary conservative media conglomerate, News Corp. I believe in a secret, subterranean, centralized corporate authority.

I believe in the Kerry standard of adherence to the First Amendment, enunciated by the senator in his formal complaint to the FCC accusing the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and the Bush campaign of illegally conspiring to discredit him--a standard which holds that censorship is okay so long as it acts to suppress speech in instances where there exists "overwhelming evidence [of] coordination with the Bush campaign." I note with appreciation the senator’s use of the word “overwhelming.” I believe the senator when he says there is no evidence of any similar coordination between his own campaign and MoveOn.org.

I believe the senator when he says Bush’s attorney, Benjamin Ginsberg, is clearly in bed with special interests, and I believe him when he says his own lawyer, Joe Sandler, clearly is not. I believe counselors like Ginsberg who represent campaigns, parties, and soft groups simultaneously are all acting illegally, even though the law and the FEC declare they aren’t. I agree with the senator that all lawyers working in conjunction with the Bush reelection team and the SBVT are automatically suspect, and I agree with him, too, that counselors representing the DNC and their sludge funds are by default not even remotely fishy.

I believe the senator has the right to criticize his country, just as I believe VVAW had the right to criticize it, too. And I believe the senator now has the right to force John O’Neill to abrogate his right to criticize the senator, just as I believe the SBVT should be forced to abrogate its right to criticize the senator, too. I believe those sixty-some-odd veterans who signed affidavits are all lying, just as I believe the senator and his massive army of eight are the only ones telling the truth.

I believe the senator is being sincere when he lauds Michael Moore, whom he thinks should never be censored, and I believe he’s being sincere, too, when he denounces Paul Galanti, whom he thinks must be. I believe the senator is being sincere when he condemns as illicit the $17 million in 527 and 501 soft money the Bush campaign has raised thus far, and I believe he’s being sincere when he condones the $186 million his own campaign has to date accumulated by these same unquestionably above-board means.

I believe the senator when he says he favors a strong national defense, and I believe he was in fact actively strengthening our nation’s defenses throughout the 1990s by systematically hacking military and intelligence budgets to bits, and by voting to slay every single major weapons system that ever dared lumber across the Senate floor.

I see nothing suspicious in the report that the senator was awarded the Purple Heart for sustaining mortal scratches etched by whizzing bullets on December 2, 1968, even though he wrote in his journal a full nine days later, on December 11, that he and his crew in the Viet Cong had not yet “been shot at.” I believe the Purple Heart was similarly bestowed upon every rice-paddy warrior, who, like John Forbes Kerry, suffered self-inflicted, practically lethal nicks, cuts, and bruises, and I believe, too, that the Bronze Star and other medals of valor are routinely granted for knee scrapes.